OP-ED: Time to be more reasonable, less rational
There may be a simple, but ultimately satisfying way of reconciling our deeply held opinions and those annoying opinions of others with whom we disagree.
To help save our sanity, our relationships, and perhaps even to save our democratic constitutional republic, it is time to be more reasonable and less rational.
In everyday speech we use the words reasonable and rational as though they are closely related, or at least pointing in the same direction. In fact, the two words are opposites in many respects. Once we consider the different meanings that are presented by a machine learning chat box, psychologists, and philosophers, we can use the two concepts to measure how we think about our own opinions and the opinions of others.
Google’s Gemini chat box describes reasonable as “The Fair Mediator.” The definition is “Being open-minded, flexible, and taking into account the nuances of a situation.” The focus is on “ensuring fairness for all parties.” Its characteristics include “empathy, flexibility, and being sensible.”
On the other hand, Gemini terms rational as “The Logical Optimizer.” The definition is “adhering to logical consistency and facts.” The focus is on “prioritizing self-interest, and finding the absolute correct answer.” It is characterized by being “cold, detached, structured, and consistent.”
Gemini concludes that “rationality can be cold and unethical while reasonableness forces us to consider the human, moral, and ethical dimensions of a situation. Reasonableness is crucial in social, legal, and everyday human context where rigidity can lead to unfair outcomes.”
Now that the machines have weighed in, what do human researchers tell us about the differences between being rational and reasonable? While investigating this question, studies involving the “dictator’s game” (DG) came up repeatedly among behavioral psychologists. The classic DG is a task in which one party, the dictator, is provided with a monetary endowment. The dictator is asked to divide this endowment between himself and a passive recipient who has no role in the decision making. The DG thus reflects an assessment of altruistic versus selfish behavior in a hierarchical social interaction.
Should the dictator keep all the money (rational) or share the windfall (reasonable)? Many different variations of the DG have been studied in many different settings. In one example, when money is earned through personal effort, the dictator feels less obligated to share it. However, if the money is obtained by chance, the expectation of fairness increases.
Psychologist Susi Ferrarello writes in Psychology Today that “Being reasonable requires a flexible midpoint between rational thoughts and emotions.” She suggests that being reasonable is often more conducive to navigating complex social worlds than being strictly rational, as it balances personal goals with human, emotional, and social factors.
A relatively new interdisciplinary field of study called “wisdom science” focuses on sound judgment and decision making. It examines how people are guided in making decisions when rational and reasonable standards are considered. A study published in Science Advances presented findings from a systematic attempt to compare and understand rationality and reasonableness.
The studies demonstrated that most people understand rational decisions as “preference-maximizing” and reasonable decisions as “balancing one’s preferences with social norms such as fairness.” The study found that this insight has implications for the way people behave as well as how they evaluate the behavior of others. The research also showed that people would rather have a dedicated “rational person” represent their side in economic and social disputes, However, these same individuals responded more favorably to a more understanding “reasonable person” representing the other side in such disputes.
In today’s political environment, those on the left and the right often hold shared contempt for compromise. Those in the middle that call for reasonableness are labeled political cowards or worse. A new book by a well-respected philosopher decides that reasonableness is exactly what we need.
Krista Lawlor, a professor at Stanford University, makes her case in “Being Reasonable: The Case for a Misunderstood Virtue.” The book explores what it means to be reasonable and why it matters for the well-being of our society. Lawlor concludes that “a reasonable person must be rational enough to figure out what is valuable and thoughtful enough to care about what other people find valuable.” She concludes that by taking command over our emotions, and by interacting attentively with others, we can live up to the standards set by our democratic, pluralistic society and the rule of law.
This is a short book that carries a big punch. Lawlor’s ideas amount to a defense of the reasonable habits that make common life in a democratic, diverse community possible. Those of us that think the only rational alternative to being a victim is to victimize others have missed important possibilities. Lawlor believes that compromise is not capitulation. It is at a minimum social survival and may lead to progress.
Lawlor finds that reasonable people “assume responsibility for their judgments and grant others standing to challenge them.” As we enter a highly charged election season, this is an approach worth considering.